Console Wars

[Data]

Let's try to figure out honestly where consoles are headed.  There is a certain amount of videogame consoles that have been in demand since pong.  The market share has grown since pong of course but at least since NES was king, there has always been a  certain amount of user base in each generation.

A generation being a major jump in technological advances.

 

I made a graph of the consoles from the 90's that had success.  Many were cut from this exhaustive list because they failed to sell enough or there were simply too many to fit in a graph. 

 

This is a time vs sales graph.  The amount of sales are total worldwide sales.

 

 

 

The total sales of Xbox One are estimated by Nvidia as of August 31 2016.  Since Microsoft had a deal on Xbox One S betwen June and December 15, the total sale is expected to rise significantly.  More accurate reports are expected mid December.

 

Playstation 4 is at 47 million worldwide sales as of December 5th 2016.  I deducted an estimated 3M units of the more recent release of the Playstation 4 Pro from the plane old PS4.

 

The block in purple is generation 8 and yellow is generation 9. 

I put Playstation 4 Pro in generation 9 because it is a significant technological advancement.  It was released November 10, 2016.  The Xbox One Scorpio is to be released by end 2017.

 

 

 

I also made a graph which judges the relative power of the system by what native resolution and framerate is output.

 

 

If this is indeed Sony's answer for a home console for the next few years, how will it do against the much more powerful Xbox One Scorpio when it arrives?

Playstation 4 Pro doesn't include an UHD Bluray player but Xbox One S does.  Will this matter?

Is Nintendo's Next console going to average the sales numbers between Wii U and 3DS or will it get DS numbers?

 

 

[Sean697]

PS4 Pro does support HDR. Unless you meant HRD blurays. It looks great actually.

[Data]

PS4 Pro does support HDR. Unless you meant HRD blurays. It looks great actually.

Corrected.  What I meant to say was the PS4 Pro doesn't include an Ultra High Definition Bluray player which as of today is into the hundreds of dollars.  They are also one of the 1st things you buy after you buy a 4K television, otherwise your left to the mercy of what you can stream.

[Sean697]

Corrected.  What I meant to say was the PS4 Pro doesn't include an Ultra High Definition Bluray player which as of today is into the hundreds of dollars.  They are also one of the 1st things you buy after you buy a 4K television, otherwise your left to the mercy of what you can stream.

Personally I haven't bought an UHD blu ray player yet. There are only like 2 models out and I'm not really happy with any of them to buy at this point. Also I don't think any of them support the Dolby Vision Color space yet, which my new 4K tv does. (Speaking of which I got the 4K LG OLED B6 model and it is the best looking TV I've ever seen in my life.) Looking at it now, I think I'd rather go back to a dedicated player. Because it's easier for my wife and son to just pop in a movie. Rather than signing in on the PS4 just to watch a movie and having to create PSN accounts. (My PS4 signing is password protected so my son doesn't screw up my game saves or system settings.)

[Data]

Personally I haven't bought an UHD blu ray player yet. There are only like 2 models out and I'm not really happy with any of them to buy at this point. Also I don't think any of them support the Dolby Vision Color space yet, which my new 4K tv does. (Speaking of which I got the 4K LG OLED B6 model and it is the best looking TV I've ever seen in my life.) Looking at it now, I think I'd rather go back to a dedicated player. Because it's easier for my wife and son to just pop in a movie. Rather than signing in on the PS4 just to watch a movie and having to create PSN accounts. (My PS4 signing is password protected so my son doesn't screw up my game saves or system settings.)

 

Nice TV.  OLED have no disadvantage other than being new and expensive as well as early models having low refresh rate.

OLED's have been having connection issues with the new PS4.  Did you have to patch yours?

 

I didn't think you had to sign in to PS network to play movies.  Maybe you're more concerned about keeping them away from your Playstation?

[Sean697]

Nice TV.  OLED have no disadvantage other than being new and expensive as well as early models having low refresh rate.

OLED's have been having connection issues with the new PS4.  Did you have to patch yours?

 

I didn't think you had to sign in to PS network to play movies.  Maybe you're more concerned about keeping them away from your Playstation?

Long story short, yes I did have trouble. For now until they figure it out the solution is to disable HDCP. Then all is fine. Except is you want to do something other than play games.

[Data]

Updated the graph and went ahead and speculated the total sales of Scorpio, PS4 Pro, Next, NES 2 and PS5.

 

I think if people who bought the PS4 Slim Sep 2016 had a choice to get every dollar back to instead get the Pro, they all would.

This oversaturation is going to hurt Sony in the long run although Sony fans, just like Apple fans, they don't seem to mind being milked.

 

Americans and Canadians are going to wait for the Scorpio I think for a few reasons. 

- People are still just buying 4K tv's. 

- UHD bluray disks are more important than people give credit. 

- The 4K 30 fps native resolution is a huge step up in power.  Microsoft will be advertising this ready for wireless VR headsets.

- Anyone who bought PS 4 Slim last September.

[orthicviper]

I expect the Switch to sell about only twice as good as the Wii U and then maybe investors will sabotage future system sales by demanding even more nintendo games be developed for smart phones so people will lose motivation to buy the system. And I don't think enough people care about UHD blu ray player resolution to make it matter a lot for system sales of ps4 vs xbox one but i'd like to be proven wrong about that. And maybe I will get proven wrong since I am still surprised how big a deal people make about 4K resolution when there's other graphical improvements games could get instead which would make a bigger impact on the quality. I mean for a game like Myst you could really use 4K, but when you're racing cars or blowing things up on a 1st person shooter battlefield who is going to notice much regarding 1080p or 4K? Especially with all the 30 FPS console games out there then you're even less likely to notice 4K quality on top of most TV's having worse motion blurring than CRT's even when these modern TV's are doing a 240hz refresh rate. 

[Data]

I expect the Switch to sell about only twice as good as the Wii U and then maybe investors will sabotage future system sales by demanding even more nintendo games be developed for smart phones so people will lose motivation to buy the system. And I don't think enough people care about UHD blu ray player resolution to make it matter a lot for system sales of ps4 vs xbox one but i'd like to be proven wrong about that. And maybe I will get proven wrong since I am still surprised how big a deal people make about 4K resolution when there's other graphical improvements games could get instead which would make a bigger impact on the quality. I mean for a game like Myst you could really use 4K, but when you're racing cars or blowing things up on a 1st person shooter battlefield who is going to notice much regarding 1080p or 4K? Especially with all the 30 FPS console games out there then you're even less likely to notice 4K quality on top of most TV's having worse motion blurring than CRT's even when these modern TV's are doing a 240hz refresh rate. 

I figured if anything the switch would go up. At $250 US at launch it aint exactly cheap to hand out to kids but when it reaches $169 or less, there going to start selling more. 

 

The PC version of Grand Theft Auto 5 is about 65 GB.  Future games are going to require more than a double layer bluray can hold.  If I bought a 4K television, I  won't be able to watch movies in 4K from a regular bluray player. 

If Microsoft keeps the price in check, this will be another reason to wait for Scorpio. 

I'am also aware of many rural towns that have bad internet service, so if all the data is on disk then this works best for them.

 

Of course high dynamic range, quantum dot and 60 frames a second are more important than a bump in resolution, even if it is native resolution.  The scorpio is expected to do 2560 x 1440 at 60 frames a second with enhancments easily.

 

Some will also run at  3840 x 2160 (4K) at only 30fps.  It will be a game by game judgment.  Don't expect any popular shooters to run at 4K 60 frames on Scorpio or PS4 pro

[te72]

-What is an NES 2?

 

-Never underestimate the Playstation, if history is an indication...

 

-However, Sony's hardware has played a large role in what direction entertainment consumption goes (i.e.  CD based gaming systems, DVD usage skyrocketing post-PS2, Bluray with PS3 effectively killing HD-DVD, etc), so Microsoft might be on to something if they include 4k BD compatibility.

 

-Rural internet sucks, so if I can get something on a disk, I prefer to get something on a disk. Oooh, my new TV can display 4k stuff that I can stream off Netflix? Fantastic, think my 16mbps connection (on an absolutely ideal day) can show me that? I can barely stream 720 most days...

[daven000]

People who underestimate the Switch don't seem to acknowledge the main point of it: the fact that it's a console/portable hybrid means that Nintendo will eventually phase out the separate console and portable lines and instead focus entirely on this one platform. If Nintendo can maintain the excellent third party support and financial success of the DS and 3DS (reminder that the DS is the second best selling platform in history next to the PS2, with the PS2 selling 155 million and the DS selling 154 million) then they will do great in the future. I don't see them dethroning Sony any time soon, but they will easily sit in a comfortable second place position.

[Areala]

-What is an NES 2?

 

I think by NES 2 he means the NES Classic. I suppose he could be talking about the top-loading NES they released around the same time as the SNES came out, but since he lumped it with the PS4, Scorpio and similar current/upcoming systems, I'd say he means the NES Classic.

 

*huggles*

Areala

[Data]

-What is an NES 2?

 

-Never underestimate the Playstation, if history is an indication...

 

-However, Sony's hardware has played a large role in what direction entertainment consumption goes (i.e.  CD based gaming systems, DVD usage skyrocketing post-PS2, Bluray with PS3 effectively killing HD-DVD, etc), so Microsoft might be on to something if they include 4k BD compatibility.

 

-Rural internet sucks, so if I can get something on a disk, I prefer to get something on a disk. Oooh, my new TV can display 4k stuff that I can stream off Netflix? Fantastic, think my 16mbps connection (on an absolutely ideal day) can show me that? I can barely stream 720 most days...

-NES 2 is merely a placeholder for the hardware Nintendo creates next. 

-I never underestimate how many fanboys will buy whatever products companies like Apple and Nvidia sell. I do however believe it is a terrible waste of money to buy a Playstation 4 Pro right now.

-I believe we are in agreement about internet not being adequate.  This is why I want an Ultra High Def Bluray player.  Scorpio has one.

People who underestimate the Switch don't seem to acknowledge the main point of it: the fact that it's a console/portable hybrid means that Nintendo will eventually phase out the separate console and portable lines and instead focus entirely on this one platform. If Nintendo can maintain the excellent third party support and financial success of the DS and 3DS (reminder that the DS is the second best selling platform in history next to the PS2, with the PS2 selling 155 million and the DS selling 154 million) then they will do great in the future. I don't see them dethroning Sony any time soon, but they will easily sit in a comfortable second place position.

I don't believe the Switch is going to keep the lights on at Nintendo of Japan and it certainly is not going to quench the shareholders.

The DS had some amazing first party titles but so much crap as well.  Nintendo rushed the switch to market with maxwell architexture from 2011.  They should have waited until they could get a Polaris chip instead.  It would have been so much more beneficial.

[daven000]

I don't believe the Switch is going to keep the lights on at Nintendo of Japan and it certainly is not going to quench the shareholders.

The DS had some amazing first party titles but so much crap as well.  Nintendo rushed the switch to market with maxwell architexture from 2011.  They should have waited until they could get a Polaris chip instead.  It would have been so much more beneficial.

The DS was significantly underpowered compared to the PSP but it destroyed it in sales. Same case with the 3DS vs the Vita. Heck even the Game Boy vs the Game Gear and Atari Lynx.

 

Don't look at Switch purely as a console. Think of it more as a continuation of their portable line, but with the ability to function like a console if you desire it to.

[kitsunebi]

Don't look at Switch purely as a console. Think of it more as a continuation of their portable line, but with the ability to function like a console if you desire it to.

 

Probably a very apt statement.  Nintendo is a Japanese company creating products for the Japanese market.  If other markets also want to buy those products, fine, but Japan is their priority.  And Japan is all about the handhelds. 

 

Of the top 5 best selling systems of all time in Japan, only one was a home console (the following are total lifetime sales in Japan only):

1. Nintendo DS (33.01 million)

2. Game Boy (32.47 million)

3. PlayStation 2 (23.18 million)

4. Nintendo 3DS (21.48 million)

5. PSP (20.01 million)

 

Creating a system and hyping its portability is absolutely a smart way to market something in Japan.  America may be a different story, but that's not going to dictate Nintendo's strategy.  

[Data]

The DS was significantly underpowered compared to the PSP but it destroyed it in sales. Same case with the 3DS vs the Vita. Heck even the Game Boy vs the Game Gear and Atari Lynx.

 

Don't look at Switch purely as a console. Think of it more as a continuation of their portable line, but with the ability to function like a console if you desire it to.

 

 

Probably a very apt statement.  Nintendo is a Japanese company creating products for the Japanese market.  If other markets also want to buy those products, fine, but Japan is their priority.  And Japan is all about the handhelds. 

 

Of the top 5 best selling systems of all time in Japan, only one was a home console (the following are total lifetime sales in Japan only):

1. Nintendo DS (33.01 million)

2. Game Boy (32.47 million)

3. PlayStation 2 (23.18 million)

4. Nintendo 3DS (21.48 million)

5. PSP (20.01 million)

 

Creating a system and hyping its portability is absolutely a smart way to market something in Japan.  America may be a different story, but that's not going to dictate Nintendo's strategy.  

Every one of those handhelds went on to sell much more worldwide.  Sony and Nintendo  may traditionally launch a system in Japan first but financial success has always been judged by profitability in the entire lifespan.

Nintendo is taking a huge gamble with this new handheld.  Having specs so far below PS4 Pro and the upcoming Scorpio is gonna put it at an even larger disadvantage than the 3DS had.

If you try to tie the console sales of Nintendo’s handhelds to financial success then consider some things.

The gameboy, and the DS were stretched out over many years of hardware redesign.  Sometimes superfluous and sometimes more notable.

Traditionally, Nintendo’s handhelds were always supported by a powerful home console which was competitive with current computer gaming standards.  AAA titles along with the industry as a whole, are pushing for power and ease of development and porting. Switch is harder in both aspects.

[daven000]

But if you look at the Switch as a continuation of Nintendo's portable line rather than console line, then the Switch is a huge leap forward from the 3DS, and it would be unnecessary for it to have specs comparable to the PS4 or Xbone.

 

The main point is this: Nintendo can no longer survive by supporting both a console and a portable at the same time. They don't have the ability to split their resources in such a way and have two successful platforms. Imagine how much stronger the 3DS could've been if they didn't have to waste so much time and money propping up the Wii U's corpse. Imagine how much stronger they'll be going forward if all their efforts are concentrated into one place. Then you factor in if they can maintain the great third party support of their portable line and you have a decent chance at a real winner.

[Data]

But if you look at the Switch as a continuation of Nintendo's portable line rather than console line, then the Switch is a huge leap forward from the 3DS, and it would be unnecessary for it to have specs comparable to the PS4 or Xbone.

 

The main point is this: Nintendo can no longer survive by supporting both a console and a portable at the same time. They don't have the ability to split their resources in such a way and have two successful platforms. Imagine how much stronger the 3DS could've been if they didn't have to waste so much time and money propping up the Wii U's corpse. Imagine how much stronger they'll be going forward if all their efforts are concentrated into one place. Then you factor in if they can maintain the great third party support of their portable line and you have a decent chance at a real winner.

Point taken.  Next is a full generation ahead of 3DS in terms of native resolution.

If all you want was a new Nintendo handheld then this may be good.

I on the other hand know that Nintendo could have waited 6 to 10 months and used the 14nm polaris graphics chip for the same price and got 1080P 60fps at the same battery life.  The gains would be even better when docked.

 

Nintendo can't support two consoles but they can open a theme park?  

If the WiiU had been built around x86 instead of power pc, they would have attracted more developers.

[te72]

First off, for me to truly appreciate any improvements in graphic capability of ANY system, I would first need to upgrade my TV. Traditionally I've upgraded every 6 years, which gives me a nice per year cost versus technology improvement ratio. However, I've had the current TV since mid-2009, and keep in mind that I can't afford top shelf $8000 TV's, I tend to keep in the $1000-2000 range as budget allows. Only reason I'm holding off, for now, is that the current Sony I rather like, and I'm waiting for OLED in a large size (thinking 55"+ for the main room) to fall somewhere in my typical budget.

 

On the subject of Nintendo specifically, portability makes sense for just about anyone not living in North America. I played my original Gameboy for HOURS while we drove around as a kid. Road trips were a mix of reading during the day, and Gameboy (with a flip up magnifying lens / light attachment) at night. Now as an adult, I drive when I need to get somewhere. If I lived somewhere that public transport was viable, I'd be all OVER handheld systems. The DS library was full of great titles that I've never played, simply by virtue of being the pilot rather than passenger. So, a focus on portable gaming makes plenty of financial sense to me.

 

On that note, I haven't played a Nintendo console with any regularity since the Gamecube. I loved that little purple cube, and although I own a Wii, I never really got into it all that much. Aside from a handful of games over the years, this last generation (as well as the current and future ones), I've lost a lot of interest in gaming. Could it be simply coincidence that not playing Nintendo games and a lack of interest in gaming in general happened to me? Hmmm... I wonder. The Wii U did seem like quite the concept, but I never picked one up, due to my "meh" feelings about the Wii.

 

On the subject of Nintendoland, isn't that part of Disney or Universal Studios? If so, they hardly opened their own theme park... and even if they did open their own standalone park, I guarantee you that's funded through investors that could give two figs about gaming in any sense, they're all about your nostalgia, and how they can part you from your money because of it.

[Data]

[kitsunebi]

In light of the previous cartoon, I want to make it clear that I'm not a Nintendo fanboy or fanboy of any console (the last console I bought was the original Xbox).  So while these are just my opinions (just like everything else in this thread), they aren't being tainted by support of any particular side.

 

That said, I think there is an interesting double standard at work here.  Some people are claiming that Nintendo has dropped the ball by not catering to the American demand for a powerful home console, even though the American market is a foreign market and not their primary focus, regardless of how much money there is to be made there.  But by that same rationale, Microsoft has failed on a massively epic scale by not being able to create a system that has even marginal success in Japan (Xbox One sales in Japan to date: 70,000).  Such a condemnation is unfair, just as damning Nintendo for not basing its system specs on the wants of the American consumer is unfair.  Sure, Microsoft has failed to penetrate the Japanese market on a scale that's frankly embarrassing, but succeeding in Japan at the expense of succeeding in the US is not their business plan, just as becoming the best-selling console in America is not Nintendo's goal when designing hardware.

 

If Nintendo's systems fail in Japan, that will be the sign that they have made a wrong decision.  Likewise, if Microsoft can't manage to outperform Sony or Nintendo in America, that will be the determining sign that they have failed to capture their intended market's interest.

[Data]

In light of the previous cartoon, I want to make it clear that I'm not a Nintendo fanboy or fanboy of any console (the last console I bought was the original Xbox).  So while these are just my opinions (just like everything else in this thread), they aren't being tainted by support of any particular side.

 

That said, I think there is an interesting double standard at work here.  Some people are claiming that Nintendo has dropped the ball by not catering to the American demand for a powerful home console, even though the American market is a foreign market and not their primary focus, regardless of how much money there is to be made there.  But by that same rationale, Microsoft has failed on a massively epic scale by not being able to create a system that has even marginal success in Japan (Xbox One sales in Japan to date: 70,000).  Such a condemnation is unfair, just as damning Nintendo for not basing its system specs on the wants of the American consumer is unfair.  Sure, Microsoft has failed to penetrate the Japanese market on a scale that's frankly embarrassing, but succeeding in Japan at the expense of succeeding in the US is not their business plan, just as becoming the best-selling console in America is not Nintendo's goal when designing hardware.

 

If Nintendo's systems fail in Japan, that will be the sign that they have made a wrong decision.  Likewise, if Microsoft can't manage to outperform Sony or Nintendo in America, that will be the determining sign that they have failed to capture their intended market's interest.

Microsoft fails to sell well in Japan because

-They don't make appealing software for Japanese

-Microsoft has a name of being a Windows Tyrant

-Japanese people are loyal to their home brands, Sony and Nintendo

 

Xbox 360 sold more in North America than Playstation 3 did world wide.  As an underdog that is good.  I think it was because the stronger graphics hardware in Xbox.

Likewise, Playstation 4 has a stronger graphics chip so Americans chose this.

[kitsunebi]

Xbox 360 sold more in North America than Playstation 3 did world wide.  As an underdog that is good.  I think it was because the stronger graphics hardware in Xbox.

Likewise, Playstation 4 has a stronger graphics chip so Americans chose this.

 

You're right, the strongest graphics are generally what will sell best to Americans (the 8 bit era being the exception).  Which is why Microsoft would be wise to ensure that they have the strongest graphics.  Nintendo isn't trying to be #1 in America, though, so having the best graphics is not a priority for them, as such things aren't the determining factor of success in Japan.

 

At any rate, I agree that it seems very unlikely that Nintendo will outsell Microsoft or Sony in America.  As for who will win in Japan - Nintendo or Sony - that's a far more interesting debate, I think.

[daven000]

Xbox 360 sold more because of Sony's infamous "599 US Dollars" and "you'll need a second job" gaffes at E3 2006. PS3's launch was at 3DO levels of bad. Even Trip Hawkins was cringing.

[Data]

Xbox 360 sold more because of Sony's infamous "599 US Dollars" and "you'll need a second job" gaffes at E3 2006. PS3's launch was at 3DO levels of bad. Even Trip Hawkins was cringing.

PS3 lauch

$599 for 60 GB hard drive

$499 for 20GB hard drive

for the 360

$399 20GB hard drive

$279 no hard drive

 

More reason 360 did better

-Tremendous online community and multiplayer gaming

-The controller was ofter used to demonstrate pc games

-360 had very good games at lauch, Sony had very little

-Microsoft stole some titles such as Final Fantasy 13

-360 cross-over titles were generaly considered superior

-Kinect was a novel idea that helped sell more hardware

-360 sold well in Europe and the West